SC: Hard to Believe Married Woman Was Lured Into Sex by False Marriage Promise; Case Quashed  ||  SC: Properties Acquired by Karta are Presumed to be Joint Hindu Family Assets unless Proven Otherwise  ||  SC: Trial Courts Must Record that Free Legal Aid was Offered to Accused Before Witness Examination  ||  SC: State Government Employees Cannot Claim Dearness Allowance Twice a Year Unless Rules Allow  ||  P&H High Court: Anticipatory Bail on Settlement Can be Revoked if Compromise is Broken  ||  Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults can Choose Life Partners Without Societal or Parental Approval  ||  Cal HC: Excessive Palm Sweating Alone Cannot Render Candidate Medically Unfit for CAPF Appointment  ||  Del HC: Mother's Right to Education and Personal Growth Cannot be Restricted Due To Custody Disputes  ||  SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes    

Maha Laxmi Hosiery vs. Govind Singh and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (06 Jun 2022)

In proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable

MANU/DE/2111/2022

Labour and Industrial

The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking setting aside of the order/judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation. The learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order allowed the claim petition of the workman and awarded him compensation of Rs.2,87,136 alongwith interest @ 12% from 24.04.2008 till deposit.

In view of the fact that the statement of the workman is supported by co-workman-Rakesh Sharma, as well as reports of the (i) Labour Inspector, (ii) Inspector of Factories and (iii) Deputy Director, ESIC, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner rightly reached at the conclusion that respondent No.1/workman was working with the firm(s)/management in question at the time of accident and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment on 24.03.2008.

Although the appellant has raised a contention that the reports were not proved by the concerned scribe, this Court deems it apposite to refer in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur and Others, wherein it was held that in proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable. The Commissioner can lay down his own procedures and for the purpose of arriving at the truth, rely upon such documents which are produced before it. Respondent No.1/workman was able to establish his case before the learned Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved